The great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas

Post by Ceisiwr »

DooDoot wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 12:17 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:52 am This has nothing to do with your original comment. You approved of something the text was criticising.
Unsubstantiated. Regardless, in actuality, it is the self that dies. That is why the suttas don't say a Arahant dies. :ugeek:
Now you are just digging a massive hole. Strange, for someone who claims to be infallible. As if we needed more evidence that at your core, you really have no idea what you are talking about.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas

Post by Coëmgenu »

DooDoot wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 12:24 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 12:16 pm This sort of nonsense doesn't belong in this subforum.
It is the above that is nonsense because, as i posted, an equivalent does not appear to exist in the suttas. If the suttas say dependent origination is emptiness then you should quote the sutta. In other words, put up or shut up. :smile:
In case you forgot, this is what you are responding to:
Coëmgenu wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 12:16 pm
DooDoot wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:25 am
What is the great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas?

The above appears to clearly show why the above is not "Early Buddhism" and why the below appears to be false speech:
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the cow-herding community of the Kurus.

At that time, the Buddha said to the monks:

This sort of nonsense doesn't belong in this subforum.

In particular, this:
DooDoot wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:19 amDependent origination is unrelated to enlightenment; apart from being something abandoned by enlightenment.
...is the single most uninformed, profoundly uneducated, and deeply clueless thing I've seen written on the forum lately. It is a heartening back to the disproved, discredited, theory of DooDoot that he tried to expound and defend, and failed at doing so, in the "paṭiccasamuppāda and idappaccayatā" thread.
It was a good strategy to try to divert the conversation, but what you wrote, in truth, has nothing to do with what I wrote or what I responded to from you.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: The great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 4:33 pm There is an interesting āgama which talk of dharmas being empty that I thought I would share
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the cow-herding community of the Kurus.

At that time, the Buddha said to the monks: “I will teach you the dharma, which is good in its beginning, middle, and end; which is of good meaning and good flavour, entirely pure, pure for the noble life, namely: the great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas.

“Listen attentively, consider well, and I will teach you.

“What is the great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas? It is this: Because this exists, that exists; because this arises, that arises. That is to say: Conditioned by ignorance, activities arise; because of activities, consciousness arises, and so on …, and thus arises this whole mass of suffering.

“Regarding the statement conditioned by birth, aging-and-death arises, someone may ask: Who is it that ages-and-dies? To whom does aging-and-death belong?

“And he may answer: It is the self that ages-and-dies. Aging-and-death belongs to the self; aging-and-death is the self.
https://suttacentral.net/sa297/en/choong
:thanks:

«He does not construct even the subtlest apperception with regard
to what is seen, heard or thought; how would one conceptualise
that Brahmin in this world, who does not appropriate a view?

They do not fabricate, they do not prefer, they do not accept any
doctrine; the Brahmin cannot be inferred through virtue or vows,
such a person has gone to the far shore and does not fall back.»


- Snp 4.5 -
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: The great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas

Post by thomaslaw »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:48 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 4:33 pm
https://suttacentral.net/sa297/en/choong
:thanks:
Choong Mun-keat also mentioned this text in pp 36-7 in this book, The Notion of Emptiness in Early Buddhism.
https://www.academia.edu/38943344/The_N ... y_Buddhism

and in this book, pp. 196-8, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism.
https://www.academia.edu/12359515/The_F ... ukta-agama
Last edited by thomaslaw on Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: The great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas

Post by AlexBrains92 »

thomaslaw wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:20 am
AlexBrains92 wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:48 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 4:33 pm
https://suttacentral.net/sa297/en/choong
:thanks:
Choong Mun-keat also mentioned this text in pp 36-7 in this book, The Notion of Emptiness in Early Buddhism.
https://www.academia.edu/38943344/The_N ... y_Buddhism

and in this book, pp. 197-8, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism.
https://www.academia.edu/12359515/The_F ... ukta-agama
Thank you too :)

«He does not construct even the subtlest apperception with regard
to what is seen, heard or thought; how would one conceptualise
that Brahmin in this world, who does not appropriate a view?

They do not fabricate, they do not prefer, they do not accept any
doctrine; the Brahmin cannot be inferred through virtue or vows,
such a person has gone to the far shore and does not fall back.»


- Snp 4.5 -
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: The great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas

Post by samseva »

DooDoot wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 12:31 pm
thomaslaw wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:52 am It is a result of previous action, but there is no doer (anatta).
Dukkha (as suffering) arises due to self-view. There is no dukkha without self-view. If dukkha did not arise from self-view, the Buddha would not have taught to give up self-view.
The fetter of self-view is abandoned at stream-entry. Once-returners and non-returners still experience dukkha—meaning what you said above is false.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10159
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: The great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas

Post by Spiny Norman »

samseva wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 9:17 am
DooDoot wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 12:31 pm
thomaslaw wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:52 am It is a result of previous action, but there is no doer (anatta).
Dukkha (as suffering) arises due to self-view. There is no dukkha without self-view. If dukkha did not arise from self-view, the Buddha would not have taught to give up self-view.
The fetter of self-view is abandoned at stream-entry. Once-returners and non-returners still experience dukkha—meaning what you said above is false.
I think it works if you take a broader meaning of self-view, to include the conceit fetter. Dukkha as the clinging aggregates.

Thinking for example of how the Bahiya Sutta describes the end of suffering: "When there is no you there.."
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10159
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: The great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas

Post by Spiny Norman »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 4:33 pm There is an interesting āgama which talk of dharmas being empty that I thought I would share
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the cow-herding community of the Kurus.

At that time, the Buddha said to the monks: “I will teach you the dharma, which is good in its beginning, middle, and end; which is of good meaning and good flavour, entirely pure, pure for the noble life, namely: the great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas.

“Listen attentively, consider well, and I will teach you.

“What is the great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas? It is this: Because this exists, that exists; because this arises, that arises. That is to say: Conditioned by ignorance, activities arise; because of activities, consciousness arises, and so on …, and thus arises this whole mass of suffering.

“Regarding the statement conditioned by birth, aging-and-death arises, someone may ask: Who is it that ages-and-dies? To whom does aging-and-death belong?

“And he may answer: It is the self that ages-and-dies. Aging-and-death belongs to the self; aging-and-death is the self.
https://suttacentral.net/sa297/en/choong
I can't get access to Sutta Central to check the Pali, but it would be interesting to know what Pali term is translated as "self" in the final paragraph of the passage above.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: The great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas

Post by asahi »

For your information :

Choong translation appear questionable .

I will try to translate .

「緣生老死者,若有問言:『彼誰老死?老死屬誰?』彼則答言:『我即老死,今老死屬我,老死是我。』所言:『命即是身。』或言:『命異身異。』

As aging and death being condition by birth , if being question (by someone) , "who is it get to age and die ? aging and death belongs to whom ?" ; one may thus answer : "it is me that age and die , aging and death belongs to me , aging and death is me ." ; one may say : "soul is the same as the body" or one may say "soul is different thing and body is different thing" .




「若復問言:『誰是行?行屬誰?』彼則答言:『行則是我,行是我所。』彼如是:『命即是身。』或言:『命異身異。』

If again being question (by someone) ,
"who is sankhara ? sankhara belongs to whom ?" , thus one may answer :
"sankhara is me , sankhara belongs to me ."
Thus as such one may say "soul is the same as the body" , or one may say "soul is different thing and body is different thing" .
No bashing No gossiping
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: The great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas

Post by thomaslaw »

Spiny Norman wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:26 am I can't get access to Sutta Central to check the Pali, but it would be interesting to know what Pali term is translated as "self" in the final paragraph of the passage above.
The Pali term is jīva (SN12.35-6), which means life (soul/self, 命 jīva). See p. 196 in Choong Mun-keat, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism.
Post Reply